Optimal Product Line Design When Consumers Exhibit Choice Set-Dependent Preferences

References

• Anderson E. T., Dana J. Integration models of price discrimination. (2005) . Working paper, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, ILGoogle Scholar
• Anderson E. T., Simester D. Research note: Price discrimination as an adverse signal: Why an offer to spread payments may hurt demand. Marketing Sci. (2001) 20(3):315–327Link, Google Scholar
• Armstrong M. Multiproduct nonlinear pricing. Econometrica (1996) 64(1):51–75Crossref, Google Scholar
• Armstrong M., Vickers J. Competitive price discrimination. RAND J. Econom. (2001) 32(4):579–605Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bell D. R., Lattin J. M. Looking for loss aversion in scanner panel data: The confounding effect of price response heterogeneity. Marketing Sci. (2000) 19(2):185–200Link, Google Scholar
• Boatwright P., Nunes J. Reducing assortment: An attribute based approach. J. Marketing (2001) 65(July):50–63Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bodner R., Prelec D. The centroid model of context-dependent choice. (2001) . Working paper, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
• Bradlow E. T., Rao V. R. A hierarchical Bayes model for assortment choice. J. Marketing Res. (2000) 37(2):259–268Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brenner L., Rottenstreich Y., Sood S. Comparison, grouping, and preference. Psych. Sci. (1999) 10(3):225–229Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chernev A. When more is less and less is more: The role of ideal point availability and assortment in consumer choice. J. Consumer Res. (2003) 30(2):170–183Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chung J., Rao V. R. A general choice model for bundles with multiple-category products: Application to market segmentation and optimal pricing for bundles. J. Marketing Res. (2003) 40(2):115–130Crossref, Google Scholar
• Desai P. S. Quality segmentation in spatial markets: When does cannibalization affect product line design? Marketing Sci. (2001) 20(3):265–283Link, Google Scholar
• Dhar R. Consumer preference for a no-choice option. J. Consumer Res. (1997) 24(2):215–231Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dhar R., Glazer R. Similarity in context: Cognitive representation and violation of preference and perceptual invariance in consumer choice. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes (1996) 67(3):280–293Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dolan R. Quantity discounts: Managerial issues and research opportunities. Marketing Sci. (1987) 6(1):1–22Link, Google Scholar
• Drolet A. L., Simonson I., Tversky A. Indifference curves that travel with the choice set. Marketing Lett. (2000) 11(3):199–209Crossref, Google Scholar
• Farquhar P. H., Rao V. R. A balance model for evaluating subsets of multiattributed items. Management Sci. (1976) 22(5):528–539Link, Google Scholar
• Gourville J., Soman D. Overchoice and assortment type: When and why variety backfires. Marketing Sci. (2005) 24(3):382–395Link, Google Scholar
• Hardie B., Johnson E. J., Fader P. Modeling loss aversion and reference dependence effects on brand choice. Marketing Sci. (1993) 12(4):378–394Link, Google Scholar
• Harvard Law Record Vino and veritas. (2001) (October 4Google Scholar
• Hsee C. K., Leclerc F. Will products look more attractive when presented separately or together? J. Consumer Res. (1998) 25(2):175–186Crossref, Google Scholar
• Huber J., Payne J. W., Puto C. Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: Violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consumer Res. (1982) 9(1):90–98Crossref, Google Scholar
• Iyengar S., Lepper M. When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? J. Personality Soc. Psych. (2000) 79(6):995–1006Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamenica E. Contextual inference in markets: On the informational content of product lines. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2008) 98(5):2127–2149Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kivetz R., Netzer O., Srinivasan V. Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. J. Marketing Res. (2004) 41(3):237–257Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klapper D., Ebling C., Temme J. Another look at loss-aversion in brand choice data: Can we characterize the loss averse consumer? Internat. J. Res. Marketing (2005) 22(3):239–255Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koszegi B., Rabin M. A model of reference-dependent preferences. Quart. J. Econom. (2006) 121(4):1133–1165Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manchanda P., Ansari A., Gupta S. Shopping basket: A model for multicategory purchase incidence decisions. Marketing Sci. (1999) 18(2):95–114Link, Google Scholar
• Mellers B., Cooke A. The role of task and context in preference measurement. Psych. Sci. (1996) 7(2):76–82Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moorthy K. S. Market segmentation, self-selection, and product line design. Marketing Sci. (1984) 2(4):288–307Link, Google Scholar
• Moorthy K. S. Product and price competition in a duopoly. Marketing Sci. (1988) 7(2):141–168Link, Google Scholar
• Mussa M., Rosen S. Monopoly and product quality. J. Econom. Theory (1978) 18:301–317Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narasimhan C., He C., Anderson E. T., Brenner L., Desai P., Kuksov D., Messinger P., et al. Incorporating behavioral anomalies in strategic models. Marketing Lett. (2005) 16(3/4):361–373Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oren S., Smith S., Wilson R. Pricing a product line. J. Bus. (1984) 57(1):73–100Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prelec D., Wernerfelt B., Zettelmeyer F. The role of inference in context effects: Inferring what you want from what is available. J. Consumer Res. (1997) 24(1):118–125Crossref, Google Scholar
• Randall K. U. T., Reibstein D. Brand equity and vertical product line extent. Marketing Sci. (1998) 17(4):356–379Link, Google Scholar
• Reibsten D., Gatignon H. Optimal product line pricing: The influence of elasticities and cross-elasticities. J. Marketing Res. (1984) 21(3):259–267Crossref, Google Scholar
• Salant S. When is inducing self-selection suboptimal for a monopolist? Quart. J. Econom. (1989) 104(2):391–397Crossref, Google Scholar
• Seetharaman P. B., Chib S., Ainslie A., Boatwright P., Chan T., Gupta S., Mehta N., Rao V., Strijnev A. Models of multi-category choice behavior. Marketing Lett. (2005) 16(4):239–254Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shugan S. M. Comments on pricing a product line. J. Bus. (1984) 57(1):S101–S107Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shugan S. M. Product assortment in a triopoly. Management Sci. (1989) 35(3):304–320Link, Google Scholar
• Simonson I. Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consumer Res. (1989) 16(2):158–174Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simonson I., Tversky A. Choice in context: Tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Marketing Res. (1992) 29(3):281–295Crossref, Google Scholar
• Song I., Chintagunta P. Measuring cross-category price effects with aggregate store data. Management Sci. (2006) 52(10):1594–1609Link, Google Scholar
• Stock A., Balachander S. Hot product: A signalling explanation of marketers' scarcity strategy. Management Sci. (2005) 51(8):1181–1192Link, Google Scholar
• Stole L. Nonlinear pricing and oligopoly. J. Econom. Management Strategy (1995) 4(4):529–562Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quart. J. Econom. (1991) 106(4):1039–1061Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Shafir E. Choice under conflict: The dynamics of deferred decision. Psych. Sci. (1992) 3(6):358–361Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tversky A., Simonson I. Context dependent preferences. Management Sci. (1993) 39(10):1179–1189Link, Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas J. M. Dynamic competition with customer recognition. RAND J. Econom. (1999) 30(4):604–631Crossref, Google Scholar
• Villas-Boas J. M., Schmidt-Mohr U. Oligopoly with asymmetric information: Differentiation in credit markets. RAND J. Econom. (1999) 30(3):375–396Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wall Street Journal Tastings. (2002) (April 19Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt B. A rational reconstruction of the compromise effect: Using market data to infer utilities. J. Consumer Res. (1995) 21(4):627–633Crossref, Google Scholar